Standing Committee A

[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]

Homelessness Bill

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill

Clause 13 - Abolition of duty to maintain housing register

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Alan Whitehead: Clause 13 repeals the requirement in part VI of the Housing Act 1996 that local housing authorities must maintain a housing register, provided that other provisions that relate to the register cease to have effect, and inserts new section 160A, which makes alternative provision concerning eligibility for housing allocation.
 Removing the requirement to have a register is an important step in facilitating the development by local authorities of choice-based letting schemes that put the applicant at the centre of the decision-making process. We want to encourage authorities to move away from the rigid formulas of an often artificial points-based system, which typically becomes associated with allocation schemes based on the housing register. Removing the existing provisions on qualification will ensure that local authorities cannot continue to operate blanket exclusion regimes. 
 Clause 31 abolishes the duty on local housing authorities to maintain a housing register and provides for sections 161 to 165 of the 1996 Act to have effect. All those provisions relate to the housing register. 
 Although no longer required to have a register, authorities will have the power to keep one if they wish. Clause 32 inserts a new section 160A into the 1996 Act, which deals with the eligibility for allocation of housing accommodation. New section 160A(1) provides that local housing authorities cannot allocate housing accommodation to a person who is ineligible for an allocation, by virtue of provisions in new section 160A(3) or (5), or whom the authority has decided to treat as ineligible. I shall explain those aspects further in a moment. 
 Authorities cannot allocate joint tenancies to two or more persons if any of them is either ineligible or being treated as ineligible. New section 160A(2) provides that any person may be allocated housing accommodation by a local housing authority, subject only to the provisions of 160A(1). In effect, that provides the right to apply for housing for all, except for those who are ineligible or being treated as ineligible. Subsections (3), (4) and (5) of new section 160A broadly reintroduce the provisions of section 161 of the 1996 Act, which deals with eligibility for housing allocation of persons from abroad. 
 I can assure Committee members that the need to introduce new provisions on eligibility for social housing for persons from abroad is simply the result of removing the requirement for a housing register and the consequent repeal of section 161. There is no change in the Government's policy on the eligibility of persons from abroad. For example, it is our intention that the categories of persons subject to immigration control, who should have access to social housing and would be prescribed by regulation under new section 160A(3), are the same as the categories currently prescribed in regulations made under section 161(2). That would include, for example, people granted refugee status and people given exceptional leave to remain in the UK. 
 New section 160A(4) provides that the categories of persons subject to immigration control who can be prescribed as eligible under new section 160A(3) cannot include any person who is excluded from entitlement to housing benefit by section 115 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. That broadly reintroduces the current section 161(2)(a) of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, which was inserted by section 117(3) of the 1999 Act. There are some minor drafting changes to clarify the intention that the classes of person who can be prescribed as eligible for housing should be the same as those who are eligible for housing benefit. I trust that everyone is following me closely—[Interruption.] It is important that one should. 
 Under new section 160A(5): 
 ``The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe other classes of persons from abroad who are (subject to subsection (6)) ineligible for an allocation of housing accommodation''. 
That is equivalent to the current section 161(3) and deals with applicants from abroad who are not subject to immigration control—for example, European Union nationals. No change in policy is proposed for the classes of person from abroad who will be prescribed as ineligible for social housing. Those are at present limited to persons from abroad who are not habitually resident in a common travel area—that is, the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the Republic of Ireland. Overall, the policy remains that eligibility for social housing should align with eligibility for housing benefit. That is the only sensible policy, if housing authorities are to avoid finding themselves with tenants who are unable to meet their rent costs. 
 New section 160A(6) provides: 
 ``Nothing in subsection (3) or (5) affects the eligibility of a person who is already— 
 (a) a secure or introductory tenant; 
 (b) an assured tenant of housing accommodation allocated to him by a local housing authority.'' 
That recognises that some existing social tenants will have been allocated housing before restrictions on eligibility were introduced in 1996, and that nothing should prevent such legitimate tenants from being treated in the same way as all other tenants. They should have the right to apply to transfer to alternative accommodation and the authorities should have the power to offer them alternative accommodation, if necessary, for management purposes—for example, where vacant possession is needed to effect renovation of a property. 
 New section 160A(7) allows a local housing authority to treat individual applicants as ineligible if they meet three tests. First, the applicant or a member of the household must have been guilty of unacceptable behaviour. Secondly, the authority must be satisfied that the behaviour is serious enough to make the applicant unsuitable to be a tenant of the authority. Thirdly, the authority must be satisfied that the applicant is unsuitable to be a tenant because of that behaviour, at the time that his or her application for housing is considered. That will ensure that authorities cannot exclude people merely because of a past record of unacceptable behaviour without taking into account whether they have made improvements or reparation. 
 New section 160A(8) provides that unacceptable behaviour for that purpose can only be behaviour that will give an authority certain grounds to seek a possession order under section 84 of the Housing Act 1985 if, either notionally or actually, the applicant was a tenant of the local authority. The grounds—with the exception of ground 8—are set out in schedule 2 to the 1985 Act. They are broadly fault grounds that result from behaviour such as non-payment of rent, causing a nuisance to neighbours, allowing the property to be used for illegal or immoral purposes and neglect leading to the deterioration of the dwelling. 
 New section 160A(9) requires that where a local housing authority decides that an applicant is ineligible for housing accommodation under subsections (3) or (5), it must notify the applicant of its decision and the grounds for it. New section 160A(10) requires that notice be given in writing. New section 160A(11) allows people who are being treated as ineligible for housing to make a fresh application if they consider that they should no longer be treated as ineligible. That provides a safeguard against authorities excluding such people from housing allocation over a long period without considering whether they have demonstrated an improvement in their behaviour. 
 Clause 13(3) simply provides that where, immediately before commencement, a person is on the housing register, or has made an application to go on the register about which the authority has not made a decision, he or she must be treated as a person who has applied to the authority for housing. 
 Clause 13 abolishes the requirement that the authorities maintain the housing register and is a key provision in encouraging the adoption of choice-based housing allocation schemes. It removes the rather blunt power that allows housing authorities to impose blanket exclusions and instead gives authorities the power to consider whether individual applicants are unsuitable to be a tenant, taking into account not only unacceptable behaviour, but the circumstances at the time when the housing application is considered.

Nigel Waterson: We should have a modest stand part debate on the clause, as it is an important provision. I am grateful to the Minister for setting out succinctly what the clause is designed to achieve. As he said, one of its primary functions is to abolish the duty to maintain a register. I understand that if local authorities wish to continue to maintain a register, they can do so.
 We all know from our advice surgeries and our mailbag contents that the current points system has become fossilised. Some constituents exhibit a high degree of expertise in how the system works. They know how to obtain more points to receive priority and move up the list. 
 We welcome the fact that local authorities will have more flexibility. Previously, we had a lengthy debate about blanket exclusions, which I do not wish to repeat. It is right that there should not be blanket exclusions, and organisations such as Shelter expressed concerns that some authorities were excluding whole tranches of people on particular grounds. I am pleased to say that the clause, having been amended in the Committee that dealt with the previous Bill, reflects both our concerns and those of the Local Government Association over the eligibility criteria. 
 Tension exists between what one might term the Shelter argument and the LGA argument. The former argues that to exclude people from housing creates an underclass who cannot get into social housing. The latter argues that local authorities should retain as much discretion as possible. 
 New section 160A(7)(a) provides that authorities will be able to consider an applicant to be ineligible if 
``he, or a member of his household, has been guilty of unacceptable behaviour serious enough to make him unsuitable to be a tenant''. 
The definition of that is whether the authority could secure—not apply for—a possession order against a tenant who behaves in that way. 
 We are talking about the vexed issue of neighbours from hell. We have all had to deal with people who—through their behaviour, their unwillingness to look after the property that they have been allocated or a variety of other reasons—cannot live peacefully and amicably with their neighbours. 
 All hon. Members, with the possible exception of the newest ones, will have experienced situations in which a person or a family has made life an absolute misery for their neighbours. One or two problem families who create all sorts of mayhem can transform a whole estate. 
 People often do that on a serial basis, but that is not to say that such people do not have their own problems. They are usually receiving the attention of a variety of public agencies, not least the social services. However, either through an inability to cope or through sheer mischief, they are not good neighbours and create enormous problems all around them. 
 We had a lengthy debate in the Committee that dealt with the previous Bill, when amendment No. 106 was incorporated into what is now clause 13. The then Minister for Housing and Planning, who is now the Minister for Local Government set out the broad reasons why applicants would be denied accommodation. One reason for ineligibility would be if an applicant amassed significant rent arrears. The word ``significant'' is important because it had been suggested that some authorities would exclude people for trivial amounts of arrears. Another reason would be causing serious nuisance or annoyance to neighbours. We are all aware of the sort of behaviour that that encompasses. A third reason would be damaging or neglecting the property that has been allocated. 
 We received detailed evidence from Shelter, among others. Figures contained in a document from one—unidentified—northern authority mentioned by Shelter reveal that, in March 1999, the authority had an active re-housing list of more than 16,000 households, while more than 53,000 were suspended for various reasons. I find that extraordinary. However, the same authority is supposed to have a surplus of about 20,000 properties. That must be an extreme case—if not the extreme case—but perhaps it is a measure of the problems that many other authorities have faced. Perhaps some authorities have an extraordinarily rigid attitude to those matters. 
 Another Shelter survey found that 89 per cent. of authorities exclude people seeking a transfer who are in arrears—I assume that that means that they are in arrears to any extent. That could lead to a debate about the housing benefit system and the role that it might play in many arrears cases. If it is the fault of the tenants, rather than the system, people who are consistently in arrears with their rent should not feel automatically entitled to further accommodation from that or any other authority. There was also a suggestion that some authorities use crimes such as motoring offences as a reason to stop people being placed in social housing, as technically they have a criminal record. 
 The overall case made by Shelter—it is a powerful one—concludes that more than 200,000 people may have been excluded or suspended between 1996 and 1998. I am not sure whether there are more up-to-date figures. That is a large figure, albeit a suspiciously round one. Clearly, there is a problem and, anecdotally, it is growing. Increasingly, problems of that sort land on my desk and are brought into my advice surgeries. That is what I call the Shelter argument; I hope I have not done it an injustice. An awful lot of people are being excluded, some for trivial reasons such as small arrears or for minor criminal matters such as motoring offences. Those people have to live somewhere. They may be moved out of one estate, but eventually they will have to be found accommodation, presumably somewhere where they will have different neighbours. 
 The Committee, previously, and the Government on reflection, have ultimately followed the LGA argument, which is the view that authorities should retain a discretionary power and should be able to take note of people's previous records. The LGA says in one of its briefings: 
 ``It would be perverse if an applicant who is evicted for anti-social behaviour or racial harassment then has a right to be offered other council accommodation''. 
As I said, an amendment to the previous incarnation of the Bill granted authorities that right of refusal. On the whole, the right balance has been struck. There is a reasonably high test, which is the ability to get a possession order in those circumstances, and that is right. I think that there is a firm view among all Committee members that authorities should not abuse their discretion, and we have debated—we will not do so again—the right to review the decision. 
 I entirely endorse the LGA's view that, 
``at the end of the day the local authority, as landlord, should retain the right to consider the suitability of an applicant for a tenancy, provided that such consideration is carried out in a fair, transparent and reasonable manner.'' 
That seems an eminently sensible approach, and one that is borne out by the clause.

Alan Whitehead: We can take considerable heart from the fact there is agreement in the Committee. As the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) underlined, the clause is an important attempt to ensure that balance is kept between the discretionary power that a local authority has and the proper rights of those who are subject to its discretion. The hon. Gentleman has emphasised the LGA's view and the agreement with that view that is present in the clause; that is, that it is proper that local authorities have that discretionary power. They should have the right to exclude unacceptable tenants because of their previous or current behaviour, or because they have treated properties unacceptably.
 New section 160A(7) states that local authorities cannot exclude someone just because of a record of unreasonable behaviour. It is a redemption clause; they must take into account whether a prospective tenant—even one previously deemed ineligible under the clause—has made any improvement, and whether he or she is a suitable tenant. The clause balances discretion and description and it will be welcomed by both the LGA and local authorities. Those who live in areas where such tenancies are granted reasonably require their neighbours to behave. The whole Committee welcomes the clause. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15 - Allocation schemes

Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 11, line 1, after `any', insert `deliberate, wilful or negligent'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 9, in page 11, line 4, at end insert—
`(d) any record of behaviour of a person (or a member of his household) which has affected the terms of a previous tenancy he has held.'.

Don Foster: During the Committee's second sitting, Mr. Gale, in your absence Mr. Griffiths made a heroic attempt to match your legendary firmness and fairness in the Chair. He heard me deploy an argument never used before; we might call it argument C. I sought to persuade the Government that if, in one set of circumstances, they adopt approach X rather than approach Y, it would be perverse of them to adopt the previously rejected Y in another similar set of circumstances. The Government were not persuaded of the merit of trying to achieve symmetry in legislation, or of taking a constant approach in similar situations. I hope that it will not try either your or the Committee's patience, Mr. Gale, if I try again.
 On this occasion, I suggest that it is perverse to adopt one approach for only two out of three circumstances, and to use a different one for the third. We have had a helpful, albeit brief, debate, in which the Minister and the hon. Member for Eastbourne discussed how to deal with what the latter described as 
``the problem of . . . so-called neighbours from hell''.—[Official Report, 2 July 2001; Vol.371, c. 46.] 
They both acknowledged that it is vital to balance the different approaches; on the one hand, what the hon. Member for Eastbourne calls the Shelter argument, and on the other, the LGA argument. 
 The hon. Member for Eastbourne is correct to say that we must get the balance right. I agree with him and with the Minister that the Bill adopts a sensible way forward. In the legislation, there are three stages at which an authority can take into account the behaviour of an applicant. The first is in determining the eligibility of the applicant to be treated as a homeless person, the second is in adjusting the level of priority, and the third is in the ability to remove all the priority. The behaviour that we discussed can be taken into account at those three stages. 
 The first appears in proposed new section 160A(7) and (8) of the Housing Act 1996, which is in clause 13(2). Under it, the authority will be able to decide that an applicant's behaviour is 
``unacceptable . . . enough to make him unsuitable to be a tenant''. 
That is even before housing need has been taken into account. The provision has been added since the Homes Bill left the House of Commons. The test to determine suitability will be whether the authority is entitled to a possession order under section 84 of the Housing Act 1985. 
 The third stage to which I referred is covered in proposed new section 167(2)(b) to (d) of the 1996 Act, which is in clause 15(3). That will allow the authority to remove all preference from applicants, irrespective of their need. Again, the provisions were added by the Government in the Standing Committee on the Homes Bill, although they have been amended since that Bill left the House of Commons. To have all preference removed, an applicant must be guilty of unacceptable behaviour serious enough to make him unsuitable to be a tenant. The same test—the authority's entitlement to a possession order—will be applied. 
 In two of the three stages, what we understand by unacceptable behaviour is specified precisely, as is the test. I am delighted about that, as there is clear symmetry in the Government's proposals. However, there are three points at which behaviour can be taken into account, the other one being the adjustment of priority. That is covered in proposed new section 167(2A) of the 1996 Act, which is in clause 15(3). Once the authority has determined whether an applicant falls into the category of housing need that entitles him to be given reasonable preference, the priority given to him will be adjusted according to his financial resources, his connection to the locality and 
``any behaviour . . . which affects his suitability to be a tenant''. 
The provision does not mention the tests set in the other two stages. 
 The hon. Member for Eastbourne rightly drew our attention to his concern that some authorities use the loose language of existing legislation to exclude people willy-nilly. He gave an example—it might be an extreme case—of one such authority. I agreed with him when he said that it would be wrong for an authority simply to have a blanket exclusion policy, as some do. 
 My concern is simple. If we have sensibly decided, with much agreement throughout the Committee, that some clearly defined test is needed for such behaviour, it is perverse that the definition is missing from one of the three provisions on the subject. As a result, authorities that choose to exclude people on a low level of testing may have all the problems that the hon. Gentleman described and that the Minister wants to avoid. 
 I have, therefore, proposed an amendment that would make the level of testing reasonable. For example, it would cover any antisocial, threatening or violent behaviour, as well as applicants who have wilfully refused to pay rent in the past, or who have deliberately caused damage to their own or other people's properties. We want to tackle all those issues. That is why I have included the provision that the behaviour should be deliberate, wilful or negligent. 
 I hope that this will provide an opportunity to ensure that on this occasion we have symmetry on all three points on which the issue of behaviour can be addressed. Failure to achieve that would mean that the good intentions of the Bill in the other two areas would be completely undermined. Without such provision, a council, in adjusting priority, can simply do whatever it likes, whether it is to be extremely tough or extremely lenient, and will not necessarily achieve the sensible balance that the Government and the Committee have now decided is right.

Tim Loughton: I rise to make a brief comment on the amendment proposed by the Liberal Democrats, but more particularly to propose amendment No. 9, which relates to the issue of tenant records of behaviour. We are pleased that the Bill has been beefed up after its previous outing. It now gives a higher regard to the suitability of tenants—assessed on the basis of their behaviour—who are offered accommodation. The Local Government Association's comments are worth noting, and I concur with them:
``it is important that local authorities retain an element of discretion over the use of their own stock. As landlords the local authority must consider the needs and rights of both individual applicants and the surrounding community when determining individual allocations. It would be perverse if an applicant who was evicted for anti-social behaviour or racial harassment then has the right to be offered other council accommodation simply because he has a priority need or because there is no other applicant prepared to accept a particular dwelling. It would effectively make evictions a pointless procedure and would undermine any incentive to such applicants, and to other tenants, to improve their behaviour or pay off their rent arrears.'' 
The LGA continues by stating that it does not want the terms of the Bill to be weakened in any way. Amendment No. 9 seeks to strengthen those intentions to avoid any confusion later. 
 We have spoken at length this morning, and previously, about the menace of antisocial neighbours—neighbours from hell. I am sure that all members of the Committee know of numerous such cases in their constituencies. Although there is obviously a degree of duty of care to everybody, there must be a greater duty of care to those tenants of councils and social landlords who play by the rules. 
 Under the current system, there is little to incentivise good behaviour--if a tenant looks after his or her house, keeps it in a fairly good state of repair, maintains the appearance of the house and the garden, makes sure that the children do not run amok on the estate, is generally a good citizen and pays the rent on time. It is also hard to penalise the tenant who sticks two fingers up at those rules. 
 When we discussed the matter in previous Committees, we talked about the methods used by housing associations such as the Irwell Valley Housing Association in Salford, which has turned the whole scheme on its head, so that good tenants can opt into a gold service scheme and specifically be rewarded for being good tenants. That so marginalises bad tenants that the reasons for them to be bad tenants almost disappear. The measures that can be brought in against bad behaviour are more effective. 
 The point about the amendment is the timing. Proposed new subsection (2C)(b) refers to tenants who do not deserve 
``to be treated as a member of a group of people who are to be given preference'' 
and states that the assessment of their bad behaviour is limited to the time at which the case is considered. Account might be taken only of a tenant's recent behaviour, but serial bad neighbours often move from one authority to the next, effectively with a clean sheet. There is a weakness in the system in that respect. Conservative Members want there to be a mutual reference scheme so that councils can place on a database details of bad tenants who have been the subject of evictions or criminal proceedings. A council that is taking a new family into its area could do some checking before placing the family on a priority homeless list.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that housing authorities often do not want to pass information about bad tenants to other authorities because they want to get rid of them? It is a matter of expediency.

Tim Loughton: That is precisely the point to which I was coming. There are two sides to the issue. To name no names, the boroughs of large urban conurbations near my local authority and, I am sure, those of other hon. Members, face enormous housing pressures. That is true not least of London boroughs, which now send problem tenants to the south coast in particular and fill up bed-and-breakfast and other accommodation, which is in desperately short supply. After six months, the tenants become the responsibility of the host borough.
 Housing authorities should have full access to the previous records of tenants, particularly bad tenants. We are not able to set up such a structure under the Bill, but we are trying to include a facility whereby housing authorities can use previous tenancy records from outside their district as ammunition in turning down applications for priority homeless status. They currently have no way of being aware of such records unless they do substantial checking. If they do, it can become clear that families have caused problems elsewhere. It is only fair that such issues be taken into account. It is a question not simply of the person in whose name the tenancy is held, but of the whole household. 
 I realise the practical implications of that, and the system is not ideal for trying to implement such a measure. We are simply trying to broaden the scope for the judgment of bad behaviour. We want to include not only recent bad behaviour in a district, but a longer history of bad behaviour. That is especially pertinent where serial bad neighbours cause mayhem in one district and are turfed out, only to arrive at the door of a housing authority in a neighbouring district or further away. 
 That is the intention behind the amendment. It would give local authority housing departments greater powers to say, ``Hold on a minute. We are not going to put you on a housing list on an equal basis with other, more worthy claimants.'' There might be other ways of dealing with the issue, such as stiffer probationary housing terms. If tenants did not get their act together within six or 12 months, it would be easier to move them on to alternative accommodation. 
 The amendment is intended to add to the way in which the Government have already strengthened the provisions by greater reference to bad behaviour.

Sally Keeble: Clause 15 sets a revised framework for local authorities' letting schemes. It sets out matters that must or may be included in a housing authority's allocation scheme. It also sets out revised reasonable preference categories and provides for authorities to give additional preference to certain groups with urgent housing needs. In addition, it gives important new rights to applicants to obtain information and ask for a review of certain decisions concerning their application.
 It is right that applicants should, wherever practical, be offered choice in accommodation. We want to widen the scope for movement across local authority boundaries and between local authority and registered social landlord stock, to promote better use of national stock, but we do not want to be too prescriptive. The right way forward is for local housing authorities and registered social landlords to decide, in the light of local circumstances, how to develop their existing arrangements. 
 Before I discuss the amendments, I should briefly explain the provisions on assessing priorities and preferences in the light of an applicant's behaviour. Under new section 167(2A) of the 1996 Act, allocation schemes 
``may contain provision for determining priorities in allocating housing accommodation to people within subsection (2)''. 
New subsection (2A) also provides that 
``factors which the scheme may allow to be taken into account include— 
 (a) the financial resources available to a person to meet his housing costs; 
 (b) any behaviour of a person (or of a member of his household) which affects his suitability to be a tenant;'' 
 ``(c) any local connection . . . which exists between a person and the authority's district.'' 
New subsection (2B) allows authorities to give no preference to applicants—even those who come into one of the reasonable preference categories—if new subsection (2C) applies to them. There are three tests of whether it applies. The first two are the same as the first two tests under clause 13, which allow authorities to treat an applicant as ineligible for housing. Those are, first, that the applicant or a member of the household has been guilty of unacceptable behaviour—these are the tests described by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster)—and, secondly, that the authority is satisfied that the behaviour is serious enough to make the applicant unsuitable as a tenant of the authority. 
 The third test is that the authority is satisfied that, in the circumstances at the time the case is considered, the applicant deserves not to be treated as someone who should be given preference. I stress that each individual case must be considered on its merits and that the provision does not allow authorities to operate blanket bans on groups of applicants. People guilty of unacceptable behaviour may still be given preference if the authority feels that their situation warrants it. 
 New section 167(2D) provides that unacceptable behaviour for the purpose in question is exactly the same as unacceptable behaviour for the purpose of deciding that an applicant is ineligible for housing. It cross-refers to the terms set out in new subsection 160A(8), dealt with in clause 13—the fault grounds set out in part I of schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1985. 
 There are safeguards built into the provisions—the tension discussed by the hon. Member for Bath is relevant here. This is important. New subsection 167(4A)(b) gives applicants the right to ask to be informed of decisions about the facts of their case and decisions that they deserve not to be given preference. New subsection 167(4A)(c) gives applicants the right to request a review of any decision that they deserve not to be given preference or that they are to be treated as ineligible for housing. It also gives them the right to be informed of the review decision and the grounds for it. Those are important safeguards in view of the serious issues, and the decisions that the housing authority would be making. 
 On amendment No. 9, I assure the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) that the Bill allows for a person's past to be taken into account. Clause 15(3), which inserts new section 167(2A)(b), states that 
``any behaviour of a person (or of a member of his household) which affects his suitability to be a tenant'' 
may be taken into account. New sections 167(2B) to (2D) also make it clear that past behaviour can be taken into account. That behaviour may lie in the past, but account must be taken of current circumstances. If there is clear evidence that an applicant has reformed or that the circumstances that led to his or her unacceptable behaviour have changed, then the authority must have regard to that evidence and should assess whether the applicant is likely to behave in an unacceptable manner if allocated housing now. 
 Part of the argument put forward by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham reminded me of the debate about antisocial behaviour orders. It is important to remember that this Bill addresses a different subject. Given my assurance that past behaviour can be taken into account but must be weighed up, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his amendment. 
 Amendment No. 10 seeks to ensure that, where an applicant's behaviour makes him unsuitable to be a tenant, it will count against him only where the behaviour is deliberate, wilful or negligent. I understand the good intentions behind the amendment, but I am concerned that it would erect a further barrier to local authorities in their efforts to deal with antisocial behaviour. While it is important that those who have behaved in an antisocial or unacceptable way should be given the opportunity to show that they have reformed, it is also important for local authorities to be able to protect the vast majority of law-abiding tenants who wish only for a peaceful and pleasant life. 
 Local authorities must be given the discretion to make balanced judgments on the basis of their knowledge of individual circumstances. Every time we specify in the Bill further conditions that the authorities must take into account, we limit local authorities' ability to make decisions which, on the basis of their local and particular knowledge, they consider to be in the best interest of the majority of tenants and residents. The amendment would invite argument and potential litigation about each of the words it inserts.

Don Foster: First, will the Minister confirm that I was correct in saying earlier that the Bill contains no definition of the behaviour that would allow local authorities to make an adjustment of priority? Secondly, will she confirm that, in respect of the removal of all priority or the determination of eligibility, there is a definition of what the priority is, namely that the authority will be entitled to a possession order? Thirdly, if she can confirm both, even if she does not like my amendment, does she agree that it might be acceptable to have some sort of definition where there is currently a huge, gaping hole in the Bill?

Sally Keeble: I am sure that if I make a mistake, a correction will be supplied, and I shall give it to the hon. Gentleman in writing. He is right that there is no definition of the behaviour in terms of adjusting priorities. Measures concerning eligibility have already been discussed. Priority and eligibility are different issues: one is about whether a person is accepted in the first place, and the other concerns his position on the list. I take the hon. Gentleman's points about the need for clear understanding of what is being considered, but that is more appropriately placed in guidance than in the Bill; if it were otherwise, as I pointed out, it would lead to a considerable amount of litigation about priority decisions, which should properly be taken by the local authority. I shall deal with the matter of symmetry a little later, and I shall try to be brief.

Don Foster: I apologise for pursuing the point—I am well aware the Committee is anxious to make progress—but will the Minister explain why the definition of the behaviour that would apply in respect of adjusting priority should be covered in guidance when the Government have already placed the definition of behaviour in respect of eligibility and the removing of priority in the Bill? It does not make sense. The Minister may say that adjusting priority is a totally different matter, but it is not. If people are put low on the priority list, they will not get accommodation. That has the same effect as removing their priority or deeming them to be non-eligible: it fundamentally affects their chances of getting accommodation.

Sally Keeble: I accept the hon. Gentleman's final point to an extent, but by accepting someone onto a homelessness list, the local authority will have judged that it has a responsibility to provide accommodation. That major decision has enormous implications. As the hon. Gentleman knows, regulations will be made shortly to widen the number of people to whom it will be available. The priority that the local authority may give that person is a quite different matter.

Don Foster: I accept that the issues are separate; deciding whether people should be put on a list is different from judging what priority they should be given. The Minister's argument takes her down a difficult route, because she will end up having to agree with me. The extreme version of adjusting priority would remove it altogether. Even if people were accepted as eligible, they would have no priority. That is provided for in new sections (2B) to (2D) of clause 15 (3). In those circumstances--the extreme form of adjusting priority--one must say whether people's behaviour meets what is required under the Bill. The Minister's argument is leading her to agree with me that there is a gaping hole in the Bill.

Sally Keeble: If I may, I shall continue; the hon. Gentleman can return to the subject later if he still disagrees.
 I understand the impulse to want clear standards to be set out in the Bill. However, I understand also the need to ensure that decisions are taken at the most appropriate level. Although decisions about putting people on the list, or even excluding them, requires knowledge of the details set out in the Bill, decisions about priority ordering are much better taken locally by the local authority or the landlord, because they have to consider all the elements in much more detail. As I said, if the amendment were accepted, we would face the prospect of litigation on each of the words included in the Bill in order to move people up or down the priority list. That would probably benefit no one except the lawyers. The existing provision already strikes a fair and proper balance between the interests of applicants and of authorities and existing tenants with its reference to ``serious'' behaviour and unsuitability to be a tenant and by linking with the grounds of possession in schedule 2 of the 1985 Act. 
 The two tests, which are symmetrical and specify a high test of unacceptable behaviour, are included in provisions that have a serious penalty. The local authority can decide not to allocate at all or not to give any preference to the applicant. The third test simply allows a local authority to reduce priority to some degree, and that would have to be set out in the published allocation scheme so that it would be clear to those applying for accommodation. The local authority would also have to act reasonably. Its scheme could be subject to judicial review. 
 Making decisions about housing management and housing allocation is usually about dealing with square pegs and round holes. Many decisions have to be made carefully at local level. The safeguards in the Bill ensure that to attract no priority a person must have been guilty of sufficiently unacceptable behaviour to make him unsuitable to be a tenant and to entitle the authority to a possession order. Those safeguards protect people whose behaviour in the past has fallen short of the best, but was not intolerable. 
 The clause strikes a balance by recognising that people can reform and that not all bad behaviour is the fault of the individual, and by respecting the right of the vast majority of tenants and residents to quiet enjoyment of their lives. We have also struck a careful balance between what is required to be in the Bill and what is rightly a matter for local discretion. I therefore ask hon. Members to withdraw the amendment.

Tim Loughton: We think that the clause should be more specific, but we are prepared to withdraw our amendment on the assurance that previous behaviour will be taken more broadly into account.

Roger Gale: Order. For the benefit of all members of the Committee, particularly new members, only the first amendment in any group is formally moved at this stage, so there is no need to seek to withdraw other amendments. As Chairman, I always try to afford to those who have an interest in a group of amendments the opportunity to speak. Once the formal mover of the lead amendment is called to wind up, nobody else may speak.

Don Foster: The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham is slightly confused as to why he was called to speak in the first place. I am sure that he was grateful to have made that brief contribution.
 I have enormous respect for the Minister, but she has made a rather poor fist of dealing with this issue. It is clear that there is a gaping hole in the Bill. The Minister had an important opportunity to place on record the Government's current thinking on this matter. It is extremely confused thinking. She told us that local authorities will have to act reasonably and that that will be a big test. However, on Tuesday when I sought to insert the word ``reasonable'', I was told that it could not be used as no one would understand what it meant and it could not be tested. We were also told that decisions had to be made carefully by local authorities, and yet the whole point of changing the legislation is to give greater clarity to what the Government and the House believe would be an appropriate form of behaviour in the decision-making process by local authorities. As the hon. Member for Eastbourne and both Ministers have acknowledged, many local authorities do not operate in ways that they consider reasonable. They have blanket exclusion policies and large numbers of people not being given a reasonable degree of priority, even though they have been deemed to be eligible. 
 The Committee will be well aware of the survey carried out by the Government, which shows that 29 per cent. of local authorities have no policy on the level of rent arrears that can be taken into account and that that is left totally to the discretion of officers. I hope the Committee agrees that that is unacceptable. Despite the tough guidance given to local authorities, there have been all the cases to which hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have referred. 
 The Minister seems to think that adjusting priority is not a significant issue, but it is and there should be a clearly defined behaviour test as there is for other aspects of the Bill. I do not know about her local authority area, but if someone wants accommodation in mine, they must not merely be somewhere on the priority list. If they do not have the maximum number of points and are not at the top of the list, they will not be allocated accommodation because so little is available. The question of priority is therefore vital, and a decision to adjust priority based on behaviour is significant for individuals. If there is no behaviour test, there is a gaping hole in the legislation. 
 I genuinely believe that the Government have not thought the issue through, so if I seek leave to withdraw the amendment at this stage I may give Ministers and their advisers an opportunity to do so during the summer. In the hope that the hole in the Bill will be filled at a later stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 11, line 37, leave out
`has the right to request the authority to inform him'
 and insert `is informed'. 
 I am afraid that there is another significant inconsistency in the legislation. As we are all well aware by now, when a homeless person applies to a local authority to be treated as homeless, it must take two decisions. The first is whether they are eligible. The legislation before us makes it clear that once a decision on eligibility has been taken, the local authority is responsible for telling the applicant what that decision is. If they do not like it, they have an opportunity to go through the review and appeal processes. On the test of eligibility, the local authority says, ``Don't call us, we'll call you. Don't clog up our switchboard asking if a decision has been made and if so what it is. Wait and we'll tell you what the decision is.'' 
 Secondly, the local authority must determine priority, which we have just discussed. Clearly, the applicant needs to know what the decision is, but in this respect, bizarrely, the authority says, ``Don't wait for us to call you, because we're not going to call you in a hundred years. You must call us.'' The applicant must constantly telephone the local authority to find out whether a decision has been taken on their priority and if so what it is. The onus is placed entirely on the applicant, which makes no sense. 
 The local authority tells the applicant about the decision on eligibility, and they either accept it or go through the review and appeal processes. In respect of priority, however, the onus is on the applicant. That is clearly an oversight by the Government, and my amendment would ensure that the applicant was told about decisions on both eligibility and priority. I am sure that the Minister will see that that is common sense and give me the opportunity to send a postcard to Mrs. Foster.

Alan Whitehead: The hon. Member for Bath will not have an opportunity to send Mrs. Foster a postcard this morning. [Interruption.] It was suggested from a sedentary position that the modern version is a text message, which the hon. Gentleman might consider.
 The amendment is not the elementary piece of common sense that the hon. Gentleman claimed. It would remove the onus from the individual to request information on any decision made by the authority and instead place it on authorities to inform all applicants of all the facts of their cases and of decisions taken on their suitability to be tenants. Although I appreciate the reasons behind the amendment, the Bill should, as has been said in previous debates, strike a fair balance between the rights of an individual and the need to ensure that schemes do not become unworkable. 
 There has been no oversight, and the Bill provides an important safeguard against poor administration by giving applicants the right to information about how their cases are being handled. In the real world, most applications dealt with by authorities are not contentious, and it would be a massive and unnecessary burden on authorities to require them to advise all applicants on case facts. The Bill provides for applicants to obtain information about how their case is being handled, which is adequate to ensure that applicants are not unreasonably refused accommodation. The amendment would place an extreme and unnecessary burden on authorities and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

Don Foster: Mrs. Foster, whether it is through text message, postcard or any other form of communication, will certainly get one from me. [Laughter.] I sat here listening to the Minister and worked hard on that, and I am delighted to have given such pleasure to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham.
 For the benefit of the Official Report, I should say that the communication to Mrs. Foster will express considerable disappointment in the Minister. He said that it is vital for local authorities to do unreasonable and difficult work to ensure that applicants know whether they have been deemed eligible. Bizarrely, he is not prepared to force them to do so on the question of priority. He assured me that I was wrong, it was not an oversight and the circumstances were different, but then proceeded to give no explanation. 
 The Committee will know that applicants deemed eligible for the list who then get a low priority rating do not get any accommodation. At both stages, applicants have the right to review and subsequently to appeal, and they will need all the case details to go through those processes. Local authorities will end up having to provide the details anyway, so it is bizarre that they are not required to inform the applicants about eligibility and priority. I fail to understand why the Government will not move on the issue. Clearly, we all need the summer break to reflect further on these matters, though Mrs. Foster and I will enjoy many other things over that period. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to think again, and so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Hywel Francis: I am grateful for my first opportunity to speak about this important Bill. I endorse the clause on the need to deal with anti-social behaviour and to support sustainable communities.
 In my Aberavon constituency, as elsewhere, there are many examples of anti-social behaviour. Its causes are many and varied. In my constituency—and particularly in communities such as Briton Ferry, Glyncorrwg and the Aberavon ward—the inconsiderate attitude and social irresponsibility of a minority of private landlords is a contributory factor to serial bad behaviour. Longstanding, proud and previously sustainable communities have been blighted and undermined. A greater sense of active and corporate citizenship is necessary and the clause will certainly help in that regard. 
 I am pleased that the Bill recognises the destructive nature of anti-social behaviour. Will the Minister give an assurance that every avenue will be explored and that by tackling anti-social behaviour and all its causes she will ensure that vulnerable communities are rebuilt into sustainable communities? The Bill is a major step in that direction and I am sure that the National Assembly for Wales will also take a leading role in dealing with these vital issues.

Andrew Selous: I should like to pick up the hon. Gentleman's point about sustainable communities and ask the Minister whether she agrees that the Bill would be more effective if clause 15 had regard in its priorities to the sons and daughters scheme? Grandsons and granddaughters could also be added. Are not the sheer physical distances that separate families today partly responsible for the breakdown in sustainable communities? I am well aware of the need to monitor estates with a racial mix to ensure that certain groups do not congregate in less desirable areas. However, the Government's aim of building stronger communities could be reinforced by making the sons and daughters scheme one of the Bill's priorities.
 As for child care, it is a huge asset if a mother, grandmother, sister or other relative lives close to parents, particularly when the children are very young. Will not the lack of closeness of the family network most hurt the poorest families and those least able to access childcare at their own expense?

Sally Keeble: Clause 15 is designed to revise frameworks for local authority letting schemes and it sets out matters that must be included in their allocation scheme. It also sets out revised reasonable preference categories and makes provision for authorities to give additional preference to certain groups with urgent housing needs. It confers new rights on applicants to obtain information and to ask for a review of certain decisions concerning their application.
 As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis) said, the clause deals with local housing authorities' role in combating anti-social behaviour. I agree with my hon. Friend that anti-social behaviour is particularly destructive in pockets where residents find it difficult to move elsewhere because of the generally low demand for housing in those areas. I recognise that that is a significant problem in my hon. Friend's constituency. Unfortunately, his constituents are not alone, because other people living in English constituencies share their experiences. There is no simple way to enforce good behaviour on seriously anti-social individuals, whether tenants or landlords. The problems must be addressed by a range of agencies, including housing providers, social services, education authorities and the police. It might be necessary to provide support to victims and, on occasion, to perpetrators. 
 In England, we will develop proposals for consultation on selective licensing of private landlords in low-demand areas. The aim is to provide local authorities with the power to deal with private landlords who house anti-social tenants but who do not control their behaviour. We hope to consult on those proposals later in the year. In the case of Wales, such matters are devolved to the Welsh Assembly, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon will liaise closely with them. I do not pretend that our proposals for new powers will provide a complete answer, but they and the Bill will add to the range of instruments that authorities have at their disposal. 
 We are also committed to the introduction of licensing for houses in multiple occupation as soon as parliamentary time allows. Local authorities and police can, of course, take out anti-social behaviour orders against anyone who causes a nuisance, including tenants and landlords in the private sector. That is a difficult problem for which there are no simple solutions and it must also be addressed by a range of agencies, including housing providers, social services, education authorities and the police. However, I appreciate my hon. Friend's comments about the problems in his constituency. 
 In relation to the points made by the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Mr. Selous), new subsection (2E)(b) contains a provision for local authorities to take account of local connections in the allocation of housing 
``to persons of a particular description (whether or not they are within subsection (2)).'' 
In new subsection (2A)(c), there is also a provision for ``any local connection''. 
 I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the problem of monitoring and the impact on the ethnic profile of particular estates, because that has been a massive issue in some areas. Obviously, the different pressures must be balanced with great care. We all understand the strong urge that people have to be close to family members, particularly if caring responsibilities are involved. However, other issues must be considered as well. It must be handled carefully, and I am extremely pleased that the hon. Gentleman acknowledged that. 
 In conclusion, clause 15 contains an important reform of the statutory framework for local housing authority allocation. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 16 to 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 3 - Overcrowding and homelessness

`(1) Section 177 of the Housing Act 1996 (whether it is reasonable to continue to occupy accommodation) is amended as follows. 
 (2) After subsection (1) there is inserted— 
 ``(1A) It is not reasonable for a person to continue to occupy accommodation if the accommodation is a dwelling which is overcrowded within the meaning of section 324 of the Housing Act 1985, and in any such case the authority shall not have regard to the general circumstances prevailing in relation to housing in their district.''.'.—[Ms Karen Buck.] 
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 13, in schedule 1, page 15, line 23, at end insert—
 `For section 210(1) (suitability of accommodation) there is substituted—
``In determining for the purposes of this Part whether accommodation is suitable for a person, accommodation shall only be regarded as suitable if—
(a) it is not overcrowded (within the meaning of section 324 of the Housing Act 1985);
(b) it is fit for the number of occupants and it has adequate means of escape from fire (within the meaning of sections 352 and 365 of the Housing Act 1985); and
(c) in the view of the authority it is fit for human habitation (within the meaning of section 604 of the Housing Act 1985).''.'.

Karen Buck: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 It is a great pleasure to be back in Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania, discussing the Bill. It has been particularly interesting to watch the hon. Members for Eastbourne and for Bath, missing the moral message and slugging it out for the role of the Bill Murray central character, which is that of a man so confused with self-importance that he is condemned to relive chapters of his life until he rediscovers his essential humanity. One needs only to cast the obvious Sonny and Cher characters on the Opposition Benches who are responsible for the irritatingly persistent theme tune, ``I got you, babe''. I will not be cast as the eponymous rodent, for obvious reasons. 
 The amendment would recast ``Cathy Come Home'' with a happy ending. Although I welcome the Bill with passionate enthusiasm, and I am sympathetic to the spirit of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bath, some housing need is equivalent to homelessness and measures are needed to redefine legislation to take account of the problem. 
 Some properties may be considered unreasonable under section 175 of the Housing Act 1996, but assessment of overcrowding is extremely difficult in practice because it is based on room and space standards that are rooted in legislation first drawn up in the 1930s. 
 Clusters of overcrowding in some areas are now as acute as they were in the 1930s. I do not claim that conditions in Paddington and north Kensington will form the basis for a current version of ``Angela's Ashes'', but expectations about what is acceptable have changed significantly, especially in respect of overcrowding and the age at which children of different gender should stop sharing a bedroom. We have different expectations about the kind of environment we want our children to grow up in and pressure is now rightly placed on parents to be responsible for seeing that their children do homework, which is impossible in the overcrowded conditions that legislation currently permits. 
 A cluster of families in my constituency live in conditions that are not yet defined statutorily as overcrowded. However, one family of five in the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea—a Conservative-run council—have a small, one-bedroom flat that will become statutorily overcrowded when the baby is one year old. That family is sharing two rooms, neither of which is larger than my office. Those are the kinds of conditions that we expect families to live in. A constituent in the same borough who has five-year-old twins and a two-year-old wrote: 
 ``The fact that my wife and I are still together is a miracle . . .''— 
because of the pressure they are living under— 
``the council has us at 139 on the council housing list and we have been told that we have an indefinite wait and will never be housed.'' 
After my intervention, the environmental health and housing departments at Kensington and Chelsea agreed that both of those families could be technically defined as homeless and in temporary accommodation for the purpose of assessing their position in respect of permanent accommodation. However, the underlying problem still exists because babies under one do not count when assessing eligibility and children under 10 count as half a person. In practice, as anyone who is a parent knows, such an assessment of space requirements is not consistent with the reality of bringing up a child. 
 Another reason for bringing the legislation up to date is that the Public Health Act 1936, which is at the root of current statutory overcrowding legislation, does not take account of local authorities or registered social landlords. The statutory overcrowding legislation is directed against bad individual landlords, whose property is over-occupied for their own profit. As a consequence, the legislation places no positive duty on a public landlord to act to eradicate overcrowding. That has all kinds of implications, which is the reason for this probing amendment. 
 In practice, local authorities take decisions about the reasonableness to occupy accommodation on overcrowding grounds on the basis of the prevailing circumstances in their communities. The logic of that is simply that the greater the pressure of housing need in a local authority area, the less likely one is to qualify as homeless on grounds of overcrowding. The problem is compounded in areas of acute housing stress—which covers swathes of the south-east, inner-city cores and some towns across the country. There is a risk that by changing the definitions and allowing families that meet a new statutory overcrowding limit to rise to the top of the priority list, we are merely shuffling the pack. Without an increase in supply, all of that is meaningless. The lack of definition means that the problem is suppressed. We must have a clear legislative framework by which to identify the number of households involved, with a modern, acceptable definition of overcrowding. That is the basis for a different argument about supply. 
 I welcome the comments that my hon. Friend the Minister made in last week's adjournment debate on housing pressure in London. She responded sympathetically to points that a number of my colleagues raised about overcrowding in London, and I take that as an indication that she is prepared to respond sympathetically to the new clause and consider it further.

Don Foster: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington (Ms Buck) who has played an important role in addressing these issues. I have much sympathy and support for her amendment.
 I shall briefly touch on my amendment and on the suitability of accommodation that local authorities make available under their requirement to accommodate homeless individuals or households. Members of the Committee will know that local authorities are already required, under a range of statutory measures, to tackle poor housing conditions in their area, but the accommodation that they provide for homeless households does not have to comply with those standards. The legislation rightly proposes that the accommodation that local authorities provide to homeless individuals or households should be ``suitable'', but it does not define suitability. Local authorities must have regard to the existing legislation, which defines suitability, but that legislation does not require that they meet those minimum standards. 
 The amendment is a probing amendment that suggests minimum standards for accommodation so that it is deemed suitable for people who are homeless. I am sure that all members of the Committee are aware of the requirement to have regard to various aspects of housing: for example, the Housing Act 1985 requires consideration of issues such as slum clearance and overcrowding, which the hon. Lady mentioned, and houses in multiple occupation. There are also requirements in respect of the affordability of accommodation. Legislation exists that attempts to provide some definitions but the local authority is under no specific requirement to do more than have regard to those definitions. Like the hon. Lady, I acknowledge that some of the existing definitions are massively out of date: the legislation on overcrowding, for example, is based on legislation enacted before the second world war. Measures that go that far back obviously need to be reconsidered. However, they are on the statute book and I used them in my amendment, although I acknowledge that more up-to-date Government proposals would be preferable.

Sally Keeble: I am grateful to hon. Members for raising important issues of homelessness and quality. Since I took on responsibility for housing, several hon. Members have expressed concern about the operation of room and space standards. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North raised the issue on Second Reading, and other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), returned to it last week in an Adjournment debate on housing in London.
 Overcrowding and poor standards are unacceptable, but it will take time to deal with such deep-seated problems. The issue has a long history. The first standards date back to the Nuisances Removal Act 1855 and the Diseases Prevention Act 1855, which permitted a local authority to close a house where insufficient 
``privy accommodation, means of drainage or ventilation'' 
 or other nuisances were such 
``to render a house or building, in the judgment of the Justice, unfit for human habitation''. 
 Fortunately, we have moved on since then. When pressure on housing rises, it is a regrettable fact of life that more poor and unsatisfactory housing is drawn into use and the occupancy of existing accommodation increases, resulting unfortunately in overcrowding. My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North was right to note the difficulties with the overcrowding regulations. We all recognise that there are problems, especially in London and the south-east, where demand for all forms of tenure is growing beyond the region's capacity to cope. 
 Many people live in unacceptable conditions, and we are all familiar with the problems faced by those in temporary accommodation.

Margaret Moran: I am sure that my hon. Friend accepts that the problem is not particular to London or the south-east. It can be important in areas such as my constituency, where large households live in severely overcrowded conditions. For example, many Muslim families, because of their religion, face acute problems when both sexes live in one room. I have many other examples similar to those given by my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North. Does the Minister accept that such families are in an untenable position? Large numbers of people—perhaps six—often live in one or two-bedroomed accommodation while waiting for four-bedroomed accommodation that, because of local authority transfer policies, will never arrive. Those families are in a no-win situation; they are irredeemably sentenced to a life of overcrowding.

Roger Gale: Order. I remind the hon. Lady that she should make interventions, not speeches.

Sally Keeble: Thank you, Mr. Gale. I am aware that the problem does not only exist in London. The regulations apply nationally and impact on different communities in different ways. They impact on large families and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North said, there is a problem for small families. The regulations therefore affect quite a number of different sizes of family.
 Many people live in unacceptable conditions and we are familiar with the problems faced by people in temporary and bed-and-breakfast accommodation. The Government have made a start on dealing with those problems with a range of measures to improve the supply and quality of housing. I have already mentioned those, so I will not go through them all again. However, taken together they will bring social housing up to a decent standard by 2010 and improve the supply of affordable housing in areas where it is most needed. They will also promote sustainable home ownership and a healthy private rented sector. None of that will happen overnight, but we are making progress. 
 Amendment No. 13, if accepted, would strengthen the duty on local authorities. However, it would not increase the supply of suitable accommodation; the Government's other measures will do that. As such, it would not have the effect that the hon. Member for Bath wants. I recognise the problem. The solution must be found through the real resources that the Government are devoting to the problem. 
 New clause 3 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North. In conjunction with other provisions in the Bill, it would mean that any household that fell into the priority need category—families with children, for example—and lived in overcrowded accommodation and made a homelessness application would have to be secured suitable short-term accommodation until an alternative home could be found. 
 In the London debate, I undertook to review the overcrowding provisions, which are outdated. As I said, it is unacceptable that families in overcrowded accommodation should have to resort to converting airing cupboards into bedrooms. I cannot predict the outcome of the review, and all hon. Members will be aware of the tensions and pressures. The Government are determined to tackle poverty in all its manifestations. 
 As my hon. Friend said, the current room and space standards date from the Housing Act 1935, which was a major step forward. Although some local authorities had already adopted their own standards, national numerical standards had not been laid down until then, but not a square foot has been added since. That is why I have taken a keen interest in the issue and why the standards should be re-examined. 
 We are investigating overcrowding issues and the effects of the current standards. I will report back to hon. Members when I have considered the options. Therefore, I ask that the motion be withdrawn.

Karen Buck: I welcome the general thrust of the Minister's response and want to make two comments. I support the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) about ethnicity. As we move increasingly into a multicultural society, some recognition is due to specific communities' housing requirements. The concentration of housing problems is certainly spread, with pockets of severe problems across the country, although it is larger in scale in London.
 The Minister mentioned the investment in social housing and the commitments made to eradicate substandard housing by 2010. That is deeply welcome, and we are all pleased with the additional investment in the comprehensive spending review. We have yet to convince ourselves absolutely that space is an element in decency of conditions. Substandard accommodation that is overcrowded will continue to be substandard even if the fabric of the building is improved. 
 Within that context of welcome, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1 - Minor and consequential amendments

Karen Buck: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 14, line 3, at end insert—
 `In section 190 (duties to persons becoming homeless intentionally), after subsection (3) there is inserted—
``(4) In any case where the local housing authority are advised by a social services authority that a child who is in need within the meaning of section 17(10) of the Children Act 1989 resides with an applicant to whom they have secured that accommodation is available under subsection (2) above, they shall—
(a) continue to secure that accommodation is available for the occupation of the applicant and any such child for so long as the social services authority advise them that accommodation is required to enable the social services authority to provide services to such a child to promote or safeguard the child's welfare; or
(b) provide such assistance to the social services authority as shall enable the applicant to secure that accommodation becomes available from some other person.''.'.
 The Minister will be aware that recent judgments appear to have compromised some of the principles of the Children Act 1989, which places the interests of children first and seeks to keep families together wherever possible. The amendment deal with the effects of such judgments, thereby ensuring that at least some safety net continues to exist for families with children who have intentionality decisions taken against them. 
 In an application for judicial review, the Court of Appeal found that section 17 of the 1989 Act conferred a power rather than a duty on local authorities to provide assistance to families of children in need. That is often done by financial assistance for a rent deposit, with rent or other help in accessing private accommodation, rather than the direct provision of accommodation. The Court of Appeal also found that the duty to provide accommodation under section 20 of the 1989 Act was a duty to house the child, not the parent and child together. Only a few weeks ago, the High Court applied that judgment and concluded that such decisions of local authorities were not subject to judicial review. 
 The provisions of the 1989 Act were an important last line of defence for families, so those decisions are worrying and may have caused—we will find out if the loophole is closed—children to be taken into care unnecessarily. That will cause great trauma for the families, not to mention expense. The problem, as Shelter makes clear, is that intentionality decisions are complex and are not infrequently overturned on review. Unfortunately, giving local authorities the power rather than imposing a duty on them to make assessments will allow much greater scope for variation. 
 Assessments made by authorities whose decisions may be less robust could leave families in a difficult position. Only last week, a family attended my surgery; the man, who was born and bred in Paddington, and his Swedish wife, who allegedly had left private rented accommodation in Sweden, were on the streets in my constituency with a small child. I have no idea whether the local authority's intentionality decision was correct. I am not a lawyer and I do not know whether the child would have been found to be at risk under the Children Act and that action should therefore be taken. However, regardless of whether that decision was correct, the family was sitting in my office in hysterics with nowhere to sleep that night and a six-year-old child attending a school in my constituency had, for the previous few weeks, been moved every night to sleep on a sofa in a friend's accommodation. 
 We must do everything possible to close the loopholes that allow that sort of thing to happen. Ideally, we would close those loopholes by amending the Children Act, but we cannot do that and amendment No. 16 would not be as effective. However, it would help by replacing the weaker power of local authorities to assist by inserting the word ``duty''. It would thereby ensure that a safety net was always in place.

Sally Keeble: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that issue to my attention. I share her concerns that social legislation should provide a safety net for those in need. That is why the Bill introduces important new measures to give greater protection to the homeless. The issues raised by my hon. Friend concern the detailed working of the Children Act 1989 and the amendment was prompted by concern over recent court decisions. The courts have considered the nature of the obligation of social services authorities under that Act to provide accommodation and financial support for children in need, particularly if parents are unable to secure accommodation and if local authorities are obliged to help under existing housing legislation.
 If a housing authority has decided that an adult applicant is intentionally homeless and if he or she has dependent children, it is common for an approach to be made by such a family to the local social services authority. Social service departments are under a general duty to promote the welfare of children in their area who are in need and to promote the upbringing of such children by their families. The vehicle for the provision of a range and level of services appropriate to the children's needs is section 17 of the Children Act. That allows local authorities to fulfil their general duty by giving assistance in kind or, in exceptional cases, in cash. It does not specify that assistance should extend to accommodation for the family of the child in need, although that is one of a range of solutions that the social services will use if it is considered appropriate in the circumstances. 
 When a child in need is without accommodation, authorities are under a duty to provide accommodation under section 20 of the Children Act, but accommodation may not be provided if the person with parental responsibility for the child objects and is willing and able to provide accommodation or arrange for accommodation to be provided for the child. That duty to accommodate is clearly a duty to the child and not to the parents of that child. It is most generally used when the children have been abandoned or if their parents are unable or unwilling to care for them. 
 I admit to no expertise in these provisions; that resides with my colleagues in the Dept of Health. I want to consider with them the issues that form the background to my hon. Friend's amendment before considering whether we need to amend existing legislation, and if so whether an amendment to housing legislation is the way to do it. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree to withdraw the amendment on the understanding that I will consider the issues carefully and report to the House before the Bill is considered in another place.

Karen Buck: With that undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Schedule 1 agreed to. 
 Schedule 2 agreed to. 
 Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill to the House.

Roger Gale: May I, on behalf of the Committee thank the Officers of the House, the Hansard reporters and the Clerks for their assistance. On this occasion I would like particularly to thank Mr. Nick Walker for his assistance. Mr. Walker, as hon. Members may or may not know, is effectively leaving the House of Commons for parliamentary duties in Europe. I am sure that all Members will wish him well in those ventures.

Sally Keeble: This has been a short, but extremely worthwhile, scrutiny of the Bill, Mr. Gale. We started, of course, with the Homes Bill, which was being drafted by counsel and polished in Committees in the last Parliament. We have benefited greatly from that earlier exhaustive examination and I am sure that the debate will continue as to which of the two Opposition parties was most responsible for some of the changes made.
 Hon. Members have sought to perfect the Bill even further, to remove every possible flaw, and to cover all possible eventualities. It is traditional for the winding-up to be light hearted, but jokes are not my stock in trade, as hon. Members are probably relieved to learn. However, one of the features of the discussions of the Bill was that—perhaps uniquely—virtually every element has related to our experience as constituency Members. That has been reflected by all the contributions to the debate and by the expertise of Members who have worked in housing and the constant references to postbags and advice surgeries. I am sure that we all look forward to seeing the results of the legislation out in the real world. 
 I thank you, Mr. Gale, and Mr. Griffiths for your patience in guiding our deliberations. As a novice, I greatly appreciated that. I have also appreciated the contributions from all members of the Committee and I would also like to wish the Clerk well as he moves on from the House. I hope the future passage of the Bill is as trouble free and well managed as it has been in your hands, Mr. Gale, and I hope that you do not have a ``Groundhog Day'' when we all meet again in the Chamber.

Nigel Waterson: I associate myself, Mr. Gale, with the Minister's remarks. I would also like to believe that the legislation will reduce our mailbags and advice surgery lists, but I have a feeling that it will not.

Sally Keeble: It will make them worse.

Nigel Waterson: As the Minister says, it may actually make them worse. I would like to thank all those involved, including the members of the Committee and of the previous Committee—they left their indelible stamp on the Bill before it even got to this Committee. I would also like to join in thanking the Clerks, particularly in wishing Mr. Walker well, and the other officials, the Hansard reporters and the police—everybody involved.
 I would like to thank you, Mr. Gale, and your two colleagues, for your out of the ordinary patience in having sat through these proceedings more than once. I hope that the sense of deja vu has not been too strong. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire and the hon. Member for Aberavon for their maiden Committee contributions. I suspect that they will not serve on many Standing Committees that will be as short and pithy as this one. 
 We have made the Bill better and more effective over the course of two Committee stages. Finally, Mr. Gale, I hope that it has not seemed too much like ``Groundhog Day'' to you and your two colleagues. We thank you for your deliberations and your help in assisting us to a speedy conclusion.

Don Foster: I would like to associate myself, Mr. Gale, with the thanks that have been offered by both the Minister and the hon. Member for Eastbourne. The hon. Gentleman's list was so long that I thought for moment that he was going to add, ``and you, Mr. Returning Officer,'' at the end of it, but he did not.
 I have just one hope—that anyone who reads the record of our deliberations will do so in conjunction with our earlier deliberations on part II of the Homes Bill. It will be important for people reading our deliberations to be aware that significant progress was made at various stages on the original legislation proposed by the Government. Were readers not aware of that, they might gain the impression that we had two Ministers acting like firm stone walls, resisting any amendment. I was delighted that we ended on a happy note: although the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North was not agreed to, its principle and spirit were accepted by the Government. 
 Our deliberations, today and previously, have enabled significant progress to be made on an important issue. That will be of enormous benefit to many people in the country. The cause of providing support for homeless people has been extremely well served by all members of the Committee. That has only been possible because we have had serious deliberations in a relatively short time. Thank you, Mr. Gale, for the way in which you chaired the Committee, which enabled those deliberations to take place.

Roger Gale: Thank you. I am grateful to all hon. Members for conducting the proceedings with their usual good humour and courtesy.
 Bill to be reported, without amendment. 
Committee rose at twenty minutes past Eleven o'clock.